ygmir wrote:yeah, makes sense. but FMJ is the only approved projectile by the Geneva Convention, IIRC. It would follow, our internal "military overloards" would adhere.

No, and be glad they don't because because it's a obsolete, silly prohibition in war, and potentially extra harmful in civilian settings.

The prohibition originated from the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, and later extended into the Hague Convention in 1899. It was conceived in a time when people were mostly shooting each other with rifles, and where getting hit by a non-expanding bullet instead of a hollow-point/expanding bullet might make some token difference despite the sad state of combat medicine at the time. Little did the authors know that the former style of warfare would rapidly become obsolete, and that bullet type would make little difference in a world of machine guns and other arms that could "finish the job" simply by virtue of more firepower -- as if that were never the intent before.

More to the point, there are good reasons to utilize hollow-point bullets in a civilian setting. For personal defense and law enforcement hollow-point bullets are better for incapacitating a target, where a FMJ round would require multiple shots. The additional penetration a FMJ round affords is rarely needed; conversely, hollow-point bullets are also safer in such environments because they are less likely to penetrate walls or ricochet off surfaces, injuring bystanders. For hunting, hollow-point bullets are more humane because the animal is killed quickly, rather than leaving the animal to limp away for a long, drawn-out death; in some places you are required to use such bullets for that very reason.

"The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law." -- Christopher Hitchens

ygmir wrote:yeah, makes sense. but FMJ is the only approved projectile by the Geneva Convention, IIRC. It would follow, our internal "military overloards" would adhere.

No, and be glad they don't because because it's a obsolete, silly prohibition in war, and potentially extra harmful in civilian settings.

The prohibition originated from the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, and later extended into the Hague Convention in 1899. It was conceived in a time when people were mostly shooting each other with rifles, and where getting hit by a non-expanding bullet instead of a hollow-point/expanding bullet might make some token difference despite the sad state of combat medicine at the time. Little did the authors know that the former style of warfare would rapidly become obsolete, and that bullet type would make little difference in a world of machine guns and other arms that could "finish the job" simply by virtue of more firepower -- as if that were never the intent before.

More to the point, there are good reasons to utilize hollow-point bullets in a civilian setting. For personal defense and law enforcement hollow-point bullets are better for incapacitating a target, where a FMJ round would require multiple shots. The additional penetration a FMJ round affords is rarely needed; conversely, hollow-point bullets are also safer in such environments because they are less likely to penetrate walls or ricochet off surfaces, injuring bystanders. For hunting, hollow-point bullets are more humane because the animal is killed quickly, rather than leaving the animal to limp away for a long, drawn-out death; in some places you are required to use such bullets for that very reason.

decent points, BB, but off the mark.the point of FMJ, was to limit traumatic damage of an expanding projectile, leading to more non fatal wounds. It's moot at to whether that was successful in time of war. But, where a clean through, FMJ hit on a person involved in gunplay with police, will often allow that person to be treated and heal, an extreme expanding projectile, will do many times the tissue damage, resulting in more fatalities and severely crippling wounds.I agree with their use in hunting, and personal defense, for those exact reasons. more sure kills, and quicker. and disagree with hunting type ammo for cops.You can not make life safe. As such, saying FMJ bullets, fired by cops are going to cause more injuries due to increased penetration and ricochet is not a huge problem from anything I see. If the cop wants the perp dead, with their training, a double tap, will do it and be understood as "part of the fight"........not saying it's right or I agree with it, just saying, if they want the perp. dead, they will die.Again, referring to cleaner "wounds" from FMJ, one might consider your ricochet scenario. if hit that way, I'd rather (as an innocent bystander) get hit with the fmj, that will do less damage.

I disagree the bullet types have not made a difference in warfare, where a bullet matters.Your point of "alternate" weapons is valid, but still a great number of casualties in "war" are small arms. I'd submit, many more are survivable, due to FMJ projectiles.

Whenever I carry (which is 99% of the time) I always have two spare mags with me. Tonight I was curious about something about a particular gun and after dissembling and reassembling it I placed a mag in it (I had three on the desk) and cycled it to place a round in the chamber. The slide wouldn't move. Seems that the mag was seated enough to snap in but not enough to feed a round. Tried another mag and it worked fine. Same with the third. I dissembled and reassembled the first mag and still have no idea what was wrong but at least it now seats fine.

I always cycle snap caps through my guns after cleaning to make sure things are working. BUT - I never thought to do it with each mag. Long story short - after cleaning your guns not only dry test the gun but also dry test each mag.

You know it's going to be a bad day when you jump out of bed and miss the floor.

Geospyder, this is hardly off topic.I keep emphasizing how critical a part of the system a magazine is.Don't scrimp on them.

I doubt you need my advice, and you didn't say which type gun this was, but a locked slide is a major failure.I would not use that magazine until you find out what happened.

An odd failure I've had happen is a magazine not fully seated.I can only conclude the release is being grazed somehow.I've been trained to always double check the magazine lock and bang it a second time to ensure a solid lock.The mecgars lock quite well and the releases are almost impossible to hit by accident in normal handling, so this may be something to check for if a gun isn't fully holstered.

On the ammo type question, this is highly technical and there are reams written about it, with solid rounds still used for some hunting.I don't know how far you guys want to go into it.

I don't know specifically, but I think the ban was related to fragmentation and toxic substances used in ammunition, rather than expanding ammo.Rangemaster emphasizes that the only thing you can expect reliably from any bullet is a round hole.I think there is a tendency to confuse expansion rounds with fragmentation rounds, types becoming more and more unrelated.The only advantage to an expansion round in a ricochet is a slower speed, or likely none at all.

Bystanders have been killed by ricochets from police rounds.A ricochet off railroad tracks killed someone here and that caused a switch to fragmentation rounds (Glaser), which I am assured are more deadly than an expansion round.They do seem to be more deadly on a soft target.However a chest shot has a higher likelihood of hitting bone that most think and fail then, or are less useful, according to forensic reports.Glaser receives many inquiries from coroners identifying their rounds in fatal cases, if that means anything.

A reminder that death is not usually the goal, but incapacitation is.A fatally shot attacker may still kill you.

In war, rifles are the typical weapon.Most newer rifles are made for aero tipped rounds and they don't support many self defense expansion rounds.Even the forgiving kalashnikov can fail to cycle a hollowpoint easily.I question how effective they are for humans.My opinion is that if you are hit by a FMJ rifle round with 1500 f/lbs in a critical area, you're fucked.

I have carried the Glaser Safety.I carry the barnes DPX now.It does have a sharper ogive than many hollowpoints and cycles well.The friend I train with only carries Glaser Powerball because it will NOT fail to cycle.

Taurus TCP .380 It's a case of having it on me all the time rather than carrying my .40 some of the time. All three mags are factory Taurus. Apparently when I reassembled it the first time I snagged the spring under the magazine follower instead of in it. It seated just pass the grip pin but had too much pressure to allow feed. All is OK now - lesson learned. As far as ammo, I'm carrying Buffalo Bore JHP. I wouldn't use them for range shooting since they're super hot and I don't think the TCP could handle a constant diet of them. For practice I use Winchester white box. A little dirty but a bore snake every 100 rounds or so keeps it clean. I shoot at least once a month. Train Train Train - never can tell when the zombies will appear

You know it's going to be a bad day when you jump out of bed and miss the floor.

What with the cops understaffed and declaring that they don't have a duty to save our butts (only to show up later and take a report), I might have to consider getting a concealed carry permit. My favorite is an old style SA 45. But for packing and toting, I suppose a .380 would be "enough" gun.

yeah, I have a Walther PPK/S in .380, Geo. good round, I've never had a mag. failure, but have found a few rounds that don't feed well. Long ago I tried a box of aluminum cased cheap ammo, to see what happened. several "stovepipes".I carry JHP's as well, but at times consider the FMJ in that, the low power of the .380 and penetration. I still default to the JHP. To me, power is good, but hitting is better. sometimes real high power, +P ammo, will shoot enough different than practice ammo, it'll throw you off.

ygmir wrote:decent points, BB, but off the mark.the point of FMJ, was to limit traumatic damage of an expanding projectile, leading to more non fatal wounds. It's moot at to whether that was successful in time of war. But, where a clean through, FMJ hit on a person involved in gunplay with police, will often allow that person to be treated and heal, an extreme expanding projectile, will do many times the tissue damage, resulting in more fatalities and severely crippling wounds.

I understand the reasons behind the convention. The point I'm trying to make is that the convention is ridiculous in concept, and pointless in practice. Short of trying to lure out others or burden the enemy, you don't shoot a person to injure that person or allow him/her to obtain medical help, you shoot a person to kill that person. Causing fatalities and severe crippling injuries is the point of shooting someone -- the reality of lethal force. If causing fatalities or non-crippling injuries is not the point of shooting someone, non-lethal weapons should be used.

As for police, again, the point of shooting someone is to kill or severely incapacitate that person in as few rounds as possible. You don't want your FMJ bullet passing through someone's side, still allowing him/her to react; you want stopping power. If police are to try and prevent death or grievous injuries when firing on someone they should use tazers, rubber bullets, or something of a non-lethal sort.

You can not make life safe. As such, saying FMJ bullets, fired by cops are going to cause more injuries due to increased penetration and ricochet is not a huge problem from anything I see.

You can. Ricocheting rounds are dangerous. Many shooting ranges don't permit people to use FMJ rounds, because they can ricochet and be a hazard to others (though those are often rifle rounds that may be more powerful anyway). As far as penetration, in a civilian setting, walls are thin, and a bullet can easily pass through something like wood and dry wall (or the cheap siding of houses built today) to hit something on the other side. There is also the issue of bullets passing through the target and hitting people behind (over-penetration). Air marshals, for example, use HP rounds because they don't want to damage the structure of the plane should they need to discharge their weapon.

If the cop wants the perp dead, with their training, a double tap, will do it and be understood as "part of the fight"........not saying it's right or I agree with it, just saying, if they want the perp. dead, they will die.

Cops are trained to fire to kill, not to injure. Should only injuries result, that is generally an accident. Requiring a "double tap" or special aiming to make the round lethal contradicts the very purpose of lethal force and can endanger the officer.

Your mention of "double tap" furthers my argument that the Hague Convention concerning expanding rounds is pointless despite its intentions. Militaries get around that convention by simply double-tapping on any target they wish to ensure will die (all of them for all practical purposes). Three-shot bursts are another means of ensuring lethality without full-automatic. Nobody in war is in the business of helping or enabling the enemy to survive.

Again, referring to cleaner "wounds" from FMJ, one might consider your ricochet scenario. if hit that way, I'd rather (as an innocent bystander) get hit with the fmj, that will do less damage.

Expanding rounds are safer because the round generally deforms on contact with a surface, causing most of the round's kinetic energy to be imparted on first impact. Such rounds will often fall to the floor within short distance of the first surface. A FMJ round, on the other hand, can glance off a surface, or shatter, retaining a substantial portion of the kinetic energy it contained and affecting a larger area. This also includes rounds that may have penetrated through surfaces. These are often the most cited reasons for the use of HP rounds, all other things equal (lethality, etc.).

I disagree the bullet types have not made a difference in warfare, where a bullet matters.Your point of "alternate" weapons is valid, but still a great number of casualties in "war" are small arms. I'd submit, many more are survivable, due to FMJ projectiles.

There are reports that FMJ rounds have reduced lethality; however, these accounts of survivability are more in the context of bullets under-performing when shooting targets, rather than as a benefit in terms of treating injuries. To combat this deficit, soldiers simply fire more rounds into a target, or utilize other lethal methods (e.g. grenades). Manufacturers have also found ways to increase lethality, for example by changing the weighting characteristics so that the bullet tumbles more easily in soft targets. There are even claims that at the time of the convention, the Germans--who brought up the issue of expanding bullets against the British .303 HP round--only did so for their own advantage as their own bullets were designed for extra tumble. Ironically, the FMJ replacement for the .303 HP bullet actually caused more tissue damage than the HP round because of such tumbling characteristics.

This is all on top of the fact that war has changed since the pre-WWI convention. Most of this is a moot point now that weapons have evolved in terms of lethality. Bullets are both tissue damaging and penetrating, and it's easy enough to just riddle a body with more holes if necessary.

"The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law." -- Christopher Hitchens

Well, civilians in a self-defense situation are not bound by the Hague convention. But we are bound by the law, to some extent. If you double-tap, that may be questioned later. It's a sticky place to be. One person I like to hear from is Mas Ayoob:http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles2/ayoob105.html

We train each month for combat accuracy. We do not take the time to aim and get nice tight groups. I consider myself successful if I get all my shots in the black, preferably inside the nine circle (B-27 silhouette). Our goal is to stop the threat. Our normal scenario is two to the body and one to the head. Why the head? Body armor.

You know it's going to be a bad day when you jump out of bed and miss the floor.

Yay Dougly! I have read Mas's column in American Handgunner for years. I'd highly recommend it to anyone who has a firearm for self defense. You'll learn a lot about what happens AFTER using a gun to defend yourself. The legal aspects, while secondary during an encounter, are manifold.

My .380, Black Talons.My 9mm, Ranger SXTs.My .38 Super, FMJs (HPs are hard to find and I will never use handloads in a defensive firearm for legal reasons).My .45, Federal Hydrashoks (sp?).

He's a mystery wrapped in a riddle, inside an enigma, painted in hot pants. - SavannahPropane ToysHow to do it wrong:

geospyder wrote:We train each month for combat accuracy. We do not take the time to aim and get nice tight groups. I consider myself successful if I get all my shots in the black, preferably inside the nine circle (B-27 silhouette). Our goal is to stop the threat. Our normal scenario is two to the body and one to the head. Why the head? Body armor.

"Mozambique"

BBadger: we're close to the same page, but, I'd say some practical and anecdotal information would help you refine your knowledge.

ygmir wrote:BBadger: we're close to the same page, but, I'd say some practical and anecdotal information would help you refine your knowledge.

I dunno, every piece of practical and anecdotal information I've found points to the same conclusions, especially as far as civilian situations are concerned. As for military, I guess I just see it like putting an inflatable pad under gallows in case the rope breaks. I do think it's all a moot point now, given arms these days.

Ugly Dougly wrote:Well, civilians in a self-defense situation are not bound by the Hague convention. But we are bound by the law, to some extent. If you double-tap, that may be questioned later. It's a sticky place to be.

Interesting fact: the US is not a signatory to that Hague convention, and not bound by it even if it is still followed by the military (if only because FMJ rounds are preferred anyway). It's the same way with other conventions such as those concerning land mines, incendiary weapons (e.g. white phosphorus), or cluster munitions -- even if such weapons are rarely utilized.

“Based on the recent legislation in New York, we are prohibited from selling rifles and receivers to residents of New York. We have chosen to extend that prohibition to all governmental agencies associated with or located within New York. As a result we have halted sales of rifles, short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to New York governmental agencies.

For “civilian” customers residing in New York: At your choice, we will:complete your order and ship to a dealer of your choice outside of NY refund your payment in fullhold your items here for up to 6 months, at no charge – if you are in the process of leaving NY and taking residence in another state.

For LE/Govt customers in New York:Your orders have been cancelled.”

With these words, York Arms joined Barrett, EFI LLC, LaRue Tactical, Midway USA, Olympic Arms, Templar Custom of North Carolina, and Cheaper than Dirt. Yes, even Cheaper Than Dirt who seem keen to gain back their rep after being accused of price gouging after magazine sales sky rocketed in December.

Almost daily the list of firearms manufacturers and dealers grows who have curtailed sales of guns and parts to law enforcement agencies in areas that have made the same items illegal for civilian use. Critics have countered that it won’t amount to much as we understand the federal government is offering surplus M16A2s to state law enforcement agencies, but the unity of firearms manufacturers coming together to boycott the sale of their products to areas such as New York which have banned so-called assault weapons and high capacity magazines is rather interesting. Even if you think these are symbolic gestures, sometimes those are just enough to garner the attention of decision makers.

Other newsMagpul will leave Colorado if they ban standard capacity magazines.

My friend has finished three of his L1A1s.All that's left is headspacing.I don't understand why so many knock the FAL.It's incredibly rugged and can be rebuilt in about twenty minutes, thanks to the gas block and barrel being integral.

The headspacing is done with a pin or block which the rifle locks against.The pins are made in different sizes.As the receiver stretches, a different pin can be used to compensate and accurize the rifle.Even with so much power, these rifles can run millions of rounds.

gyre wrote:I agree it's not pretty.It does seem to incorporate a number of upgrades people want like rails, upgraded sights.Some people like the calibre too.I prefer 7.62x39.

My Romanian WUM-1 came complete with a side rail mounted on the receiver..and retained the wood stocks. You could add a wood (Or Polymer) side folder or a Steel underfolder and it would still look nice. Tactical doesn't necessarily mean making it hideous. Maybe this is why I preferred Molotovs over Bricks.

It's heavy all right, even with the polymer furniture.Doesn't feel too heavy when you're firing it though.Bear in mind it's a 308 with 3,000 ft/lbs.If I'm carrying something for miles, I'd rather carry an AK.